THE DRAGON IN POLITICS, 


-OR- 

PROHIBITION 

THE GREAT ISSUE. 


BY 



A speech delivered at Freeport, Illinois, 
October 15, 1888. 


■‘The State rests on such inherent and universal conditions 
in the constitution of man as to become a necessary out-growth 
under an organic law of its own; its immediate rightfulness is 
determined by its present relation to its own line of growth as 
defined by the public liberty.” —Bascom. 


WITNESS PRINT. 
PLATTEVILLE, WISCONSIN. 

1889. 


































Copyright, 


by Henry H. Roser. 


/ 









THE DRAGON IN POLITICS, 


—OR— 



Introduced by Me. R. J. Hazlett, the chairman of the 
meeting, Me. Roser spoke as follows: 

Mr. Chairman , Ladies and Gentlemen :—The true province 
of a political speaker, as I apprehend it, is to present such an 
exposition of the principles and methods of the political parties 
in the field as will be of assistance to his hearers in determin¬ 
ing on election day with what party they will cast the weight 
of their in fluence in order that the best interests of the American 
.people may be conserved. I do not know how many Repub¬ 
licans there are present this evening, how many Democrats, or 
how many Prohibitionists and it does not matter so'far as 
what I shall have to say is concerned. I am not here to say 
what will be pleasing for you to hear; I am not here to 
affirm only those propositions acceptable to my audience. I 
am here to give you my personal views upon this great 
question of the prohibition of the liquor traffic and kindred 
issues. I trust that no one has come here with the expectation 
of listening to an argument entirely in accordance with his 
own views. It is the duty of a public speaker to give his 
personal views upon the question which he proposes to discuss; 
it is the duty of his audience to receive those views, grant them 
proper consideration and then accept or reject them as con¬ 
science dictates. I have no harsh feelings in my heart for any 
Republican or Democrat who does not yet see his way clear to 
leave the old party and to act with the young Prohibition 
party, which has now fairly entered the arena of national 





2 


politics. T was o^nce a Republican and no man cherished 
greater loyalty to that party or entertained more respect for 
the glorious record of its earlier days. And when, at the call 
of conscience, the time came to forsake its standard, no one 
did so with greater regret for its departed greatness. If I 
shall indulge in any invective this evening, it will be against 
the politicians who t control the party machine and all who 
voluntarily further their designing machinations. 

If any person desires to ask a question upon any point 
which will be brought up this evening, it will be in order at 
the close of the address and I will respond to the best of my 
ability. If I shall make any misstatement of fact, or any 
misrepresentation, whatever, during the evening, I trust that 
no one will hesitate a moment to correct it, for it is not my 
intention to pervert the truth. I believe in a fair, free and 
full discussion of the great economical and political questions 
which are agitating the minds of civilized mankind. And 
among these there is none which is of greater importance, or 
which more nearly concerns the dearest interests of man than 
the perplexing problem of setting in motion the machinery 
which shall best and soonest deliver the human race from the 
galling chains of slavery to the all-blighting habit of intem¬ 
perance. There is nothing at which I feel more at home than 
in the crusade against this consuming evil. I am one of those 
volunteers who have enlisted for the war and who are deter¬ 
mined never to lay down their arms until the last vestige of 
the curse of drink is blotted out of this fair land of ours. 

And I want to say further, that the terms Republican 
party, Democratic party, and Prohibition party as used in my 
address this evening refer to the national organizations. I do 
not believe that there is such a thing, strictly speaking, as a 
state party. I do not believe that the policy of a party in two 
or three or four states materially affects the policy of that 
party as a national organization. The national body dictates 
the platform and methods of the party and from it there is no 
appeal save to the people themselves. And so, remembering 
that I shall deal entirely with the political parties as factors in 
the field of national politics, you will be enabled better to 
grasp the thoughts I shall present. 

Permit me to spend a few moments in showing the rela- 




3 


tion of liquor-selling and liquor-drinking to the happiness of 
the individual, the welfare of the home, and the peace and 
good order of society. Going back to first principles, I have 
to say that man is a social being. He has thoughts, feelings, 
volitions. He was created with the disposition to exchange 
the results of his mental and of his physical labor lor those of 
his fellow-man. Solitude is distasteful, abhorrent to him. 
The convict in prison fears no punishment so much as solitary 
confinement. Man cannot live alone. No person with unim¬ 
paired mental faculties would be content to live on a deserted 
island, cut off from communication with the world of man¬ 
kind, even though he were surrounded with the comforts of 
civilized life. Any society is preferred by mankind to none. 
Even the outlaws organize and enforce a code of rules for the 
preservation of order and personal rights. There is no fact, I 
think, more axiomatic than the existence of the social in¬ 
stinct, not only in man, but in all animals. 

The union of individuals in social organization does 
away, to an extent, with personal natural rights and obliga¬ 
tions and as compensation creates personal civil rights and 
corresponding duties. Society is a perfect partnership. The 
wisdom of the adoption of a certain public policy is deter¬ 
mined by its relation to the welfare of societ y as a whole. In¬ 
dividual rights are constantly giving way to the general good. 
My prerogatives as an individual end where those of society 
begin. Our actions as members of the body social are re¬ 
stricted in a thousand ways. I might stand upon this plat¬ 
form from now until morning giving you specific illustrations 
of this fact. I should quote the laws of this country, from the 
American constitution down to the most unimportant munici¬ 
pal regulation. I should instance the innumerable laws, rules 
and usages which govern our deportment in social intercourse. 
Each and every regulation imposes restraint upon some mem¬ 
ber of society.* 

The socialist, anarchist and saloon-keeper are entirely will¬ 
ing that others should surrender personal rights for the bene¬ 
fit of society, but when called upon in turn to make the sacri¬ 
fice, they meet you with a snarl, and exclaim: “I thought this 
is a free country!” Personal liberty and personal license are 
essentially different in their nature. True personal liberty is 





4 


4 

the heritage of the patriot, while the unbridled license which 
finds birth in the rebellious heart is the index of a traitor. 
The civic rights inherent in American citizenship are such as 
freeman should possess, but they do not overstep the bounds 
into the realm of license. Personal license carried to its legit¬ 
imate outcome means anarchy and political chaos. It ignores 
the fact that the adoption of the social compact necessitates 
mutual rights and mutual duties. 

The best exponent of this truth is our own government. 
No country on the face of the globe is more favorable to the 
development of a noble manhood and a true womanhood. 
Upon American soil every man is a sovereign by virtue of his 
citizenship. As a consequence it becomes more necessary 
here than elsewhere that the rights of our fellow-citizens 
should be respected and the duties of citizenship should be 
properly performed, inasmuch as our American system of 
government depends for its perpetuity upon the intelligence 
and integrity of the people. Progress is the watchword of 
this young republic, and before the bright sunlight of our 
magnificent American civilization, illiteracy and superstition 
are fast fading away. 

The home is the foundation of the social structure. 
From it the church, the school, the state derive their 
existence. In primitive times they were all blended into one. 
The patriarchal or tribal form of government marks the be¬ 
ginning of civil organization and out of this has come the fact 
of the home as the unit of society. The man who can call no 
woman wife is only half a man; the woman who does not preside 
as mistress over a home is but half a woman. Imagine, if you 
please, the government in the hands of the bachelors and 
widowers! At the end of the first six months they would levy 
upon our homes for assistance. I believe that President 
James Buchanan, infamous old failure that he was, would 
have bequeathed to us a far worthier record, liad he en joyed 
the influences which come from a true home. 

Our country and its grand institutions possess no greater 
security than the pure, happy homes which crown its hillsides 
and dot its valleys. They form a mighty shield of defense 
against the iconoclasm, anarchy, outlawry, and alcoholism of this 
age. To them we must look for the future rulers of our 


5 


nation, if the dearly bought liberties of our fathers are to be 
preserved for the enjoyment of future generations. The 
preservation and protection of the home in all its essential 
purity must, then, be the first concern of all good government. 
That is not only good sentiment: it is good politics, good states¬ 
manship. 

The third of a century since ante-bellum days has 
witnessed a complete re-arrangement of society upon this drink 
question. Not only has the x4.merican system of saloons been 
evolved, with its deceptive attractions and professional 
drunkard-making, but there has been a re-formation of the 
social classes into abstainers and non-abstainers. In other 
words, the sheep have been parted from the goats. We have 
reached a point in the history of this reform where the user of 
alcoholic beverages is labeled at once as a man who disregards 
the condemnation of friends, the wishes of dear ones, the voice 
of conscience, the teaching of science, and the command of 
God. There are few users of intoxicating liquors who are not 
the slaves of appetite. The drinkers of to-day are professionals 
—men who live for their appetites, who are willing to yield 
anything in preference to their liquor and who will sacrifice 
much to get it. These facts taken into consideration explain 
why it is possible for a large share of our population to idle 
away their time in the drinking-shops and to contribute so 
freely of their income, at the expense of home comforts. The 
key to this change is to be found in many causes which have 
been at work, chief among which are the adulteration of 
liquors, the demoralizing effects of the late war and the evolu¬ 
tion of the American saloon. 

Under the operation of the license system the liquor 
curse has grown to immense proportions until it overspreads 
with its baleful shadow every good thing. When we realize 
what a large proportion of the misery and woe and disease 
and crime entailed upon our generation is directly or indi¬ 
rectly inspired by the traffic in intoxicating liquors, it is then 
that the failure of the license system as one of regulation and 
restriction stands forth in all its appalling nakedness. Fifty 
years ago the traffic in liquors as a distinctive system had no 
existence. The sale of liquors then formed a part, and 
generally an important one, of the trade of grocers, tavern- 





6 


keepers and farmers. Out of these conditions has been 
evolved the American saloon as we find it to-day. The growth 
of the traffic has been something remarkable and now there is 
none more centralized or possessing greater solidarity. It is 
the principal menace to-day to the development of the great 
people who are rearing heavenward upon this western conti¬ 
nent the magnificent structure which is to have as a tenement 
the apotheosis of liberty. It is a frightful incubus upon the 
best thought and energies of the American nation, which is 
bearing to the pinnacle of successful consummation the grandest 
empire of history. It has effected thorough organization in 
all its branches and is a power for evil to-day such as was never 
dreamed of in the early history of the traffic. Its influence in 
the politics of the country is all pervading. It maintains rings, 
pools and trusts, bribes legislators, subsidizes the press, lays 
its guilty hand upon our school system and leaves its slimy 
traces even in the temple of the everlasting God! 

The work of organization againsl the liquor power is 
going on much the same as in years past and the liquor-seller 
is just as defiant. He has planted himself behind the narrow 
prejudices and unprogressive spirit of the age, still sanctioned 
by the state in his terrible work of destroying the noblest gift 
of God to man—reason. It is high time that the American 
people awake to a sense of the powerful hold which the liquor 
traffic has upon the life of the nation. If we do not crush the 
grog-shop, it will crush us! The liquor-sellers of this country 
are notorious law breakers. No other class so persistently and 
with greater impunity disregard the will of the people ex¬ 
pressed iu due form of law. The crime of the anarchist, who 
would replace our star-spangled banner with the crimson em¬ 
blem of anarchy, is not one whit greater than that of the 
saloonkeeper, who tramples under foot all law which would 
restrict his business. There are some who think that God 
made a mistake when he created the species of humanity 
known as the liquor-dealer. No one has discovered any good 
in his business and many believe and affirm that by far the 
larger part of the evils entailed upon the human race are 
ascribable directly or indirectly to the traffic in alcoholic 
liquors, and yet Christian men look calmly on and vote to 
legalize the monstrous iniquity! 



7 


The assassination of Geo. C. Haddock, the fearless leader 
of the prohibition movement in Iowa, was a matter of little 
surprise when we consider the lawless character of the men 
whom he opposed. The murder was the legitimate fruit of the 
license' system, which has been educating the liquor-dealer to 
believe that they and their business are entitled to the pro¬ 
tection and fostering care of the state. Had the officers of the 
law done their duty in Sioux City, the martyrdom of Haddock 
would never have taken its place in history. Their dereliction 
made the murder possible. As it was, the enforcement of the 
law was left to a private citizen while the sworn officers of the 
law took the position of disinterested spectators or guilty 
accomplices of the outlawed traffickers. But the moral sense 
of the people has been aroused to such an extent as augurs the 
complete extirpation of the grog-shop system from the land. 
The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the prohibition reform. 
The assassination of Haddock, Gambrel, Northrup, Pierce, 
Smith, and other defenders of the majesty of the law will have 
the opposite effect intended by the murderers. Instead of 
creating a sentiment in favor of the liquor-dealers, it has sound¬ 
ed the death knell to their hopes. Many timid ones who 
had before tolerated the enemies of law and order have been 
aroused to a sense of the inborn iniquity of the traffic. There 
has come the realization that these murders are the natural 
consequence of the domination by the liquor interests. 

The abolition of the saloon by the will of the people is 
founded upon the relation of the liquor traffic to the peace, 
good order and welfare of society. There is a wide and plain 
difference between total abstinence as a personal, private vir* 
tue and the prohibition of liquor-selling by statutatory or con¬ 
stitutional enactment. The one deals with the relation of the 
use of alcoholic liquors to the personal weal of the individual, 
the other deals with the relation of liquor-selling to the public 
weal. According to the highest legal authority, the United 
States Supreme Court, the state may suppress the traffic in 
intoxicating liquors, by virtue of its police power, upon the 
ground that it debauches the people, ruins character, encour¬ 
ages ignorance, destroys moral purpose, places a premium 
upon vice of all kinds and entirely unfits men for the import¬ 
ant duties devolving upon citizenship in a free and enlight- 



8 


A 


ened country. Grant, moreover, that the liquor traffic is a 
positive public evil, concede the premise that it is the true 
province of civil government to insure full and adequate pro- 
tection to public health, harmony and prosperity, and you 
cannot logically escape the conclusion that the state ntay not 
license the manufacture and sale of intoxicating beverages, 
but upon the contrary is under the strongest obligations to 
abolish the traffic. Take this thought with } r ou for solemn 
consideration and it will so work itself into the very fiber and 
grain of your being that your consciousness will be pervaded 
in its entirety with the unavoidable conclusion, that the abol¬ 
ition of the liquor traffic is positively, • unquestionably, eter¬ 
nally right, and the license.of the traffic positively, unquest¬ 
ionably, eternally wrong. When the iron grip of the law has 
fastened itself upon the throat of the drunkard-maker, then, and 
not until then, will it be time to come to terms with the 
trafficker in the morals of a free people! 

But the liquor-dealer is not the only one responsible for 
the terrible results flowing from the business of drunkard¬ 
making. You—voter for a license party—gave your per¬ 
mission that the right and privilege should be sold to him to 
carry on the infamous traffic. He is your direct agent in the 
business of despoiling the people of the necessaries and com¬ 
forts and luxuries of life. The old party voters may chuckle 
when they contemplate and figure over the profits that will 
accrue to them from the rum revenues, but they may be 
assured that accountability for the iniquity wrought out by 
this hellish work will be placed where it belongs—upon their 
shoulders. They may be assured that every piece of the 
money extorted from the unwilling hands of the traffickers in 
rum is covered with) the blood of the whisky-slain. You may 
turn and squirm and twist, but as God lives and reigns, you 
can not evade your responsibility. Do not desert your agent 
and partner, I pray you, when the time for reckoning the 
account comes. You ought to have remembered, when you 
voted for a license party, what bitter, bitter fruits would be 
borne by the business to which your party proposes to afford 
legal protection. 

The dealer in intoxicants not only takes the wages of the 
laborer, but he exchanges for it that which debases the 





intellect, dethrones reason, r makes the name of man a hollow 
mockery and robs him of his rarest joys. The abolition of the 
liquor- traffic would work a practical solution of the much 
mooted labor problem. Strikes, hard times and financial 
crises would become much less frequent. Labor unions' would 
find much less to oceupy^their time and energies. The threat¬ 
ening cry of “bread or blood!” would not then be heard from 
the throats of crazed mobs in our large cities. Is it then 
wise, as a matter of policy, that this over-reaching system of 
license should be maintained? Shall the state continue to 
barter the happiness and lives of her citizens for rnonpy? Has 
all distinction between decency and indecency, right and 
wrong been lost ? It must be true that public sentiment u£>on 
this all-pervasive question will soon crystallize itself into action 
and this crying disgrace to our civilization be blotted out of 
existence! 

The times point with unmistakable precision to the ultimate 
supremacy and triumphal reign of prohibition of the liquor 
traffic—sanctioned by the supreme will of the people, acting 
in their sovereign capacity. If experience has proved any¬ 
thing, it has that this policy is the supreme remedy for the 
evils entailed.upon the state by the dread habit of intemper¬ 
ance. Our great aim as workers in this reform must be to ad¬ 
vance the cause of temperance to an ultimate triumph so 
complete as to be irreversible. Whatever legitimate policy- 
will best and soonest achieve the result is the one which should 
receive, our support. Is it any wonder that we get 
discouraged in reclaiming the fallen, when the authority of 
the state sanctions and upholds the devilish work that is being- 
carried on in the drunkard-factories? Take away that 
sanction, let the state draw its support from legitimate sources 
and the whisky traffic will receive its death blow. Prohi¬ 
bition will still the busy hand of the drunkard-maker, close 
the door of the drunkard-factory and bring to a close the magic 
dance of death which has held its fatal sway through the 
centuries. We shall then not need to save the victim from 
the cruel grasp of the red dragon; the fatal cup will be beyond 
his reach. No line of true temperance effort should be at this 
time abandoned. The trenches we have captured, the higlits 
•we have stormed, the positions we have taken should not be 





10 


surrendered; but there are fortresses, well-nigh impregnable, 
the importance of holding which cannot be too greatly 
emphasized at this time. 

While the Good Templars are lifting one wretched victim 
out of the gutter, the liquor-dealers are preparing hundreds 
for the same destination. The grog-shops, are the great 
stumbling block to individual abstinence. No moral suasion 
movement can have complete and permanent results so long 
as these death-traps carry on their pernicious work. The 
saloon-keeper stands ever ready to win back to his familiar 
haunts the former patron, whom a kind hand has led 
from the error of his way. Too often he succeeds in his 
devilish design. Every day and every hour lost in closing 
these busy manufactories of satan mean the postponement of 
victory for sobriety and truth and righteousness. Let us lay 
the ax at the root of this deadly upas tree, instead of pruning 
its branches! Our influence in this great reform must be an 
active, living force. We should begin to realize the enormity 
of the contest, the wideness and immensity of the interests con¬ 
cerned and the varied under-currents of justice and right 
which are pushing the reform to successful consummation. 
The liquor traffic is the same everywhere—in this city of 
Freeport, in the state of Illinois, in your sister states, across 
the mighty waters of the storm-tossed oceans. It brutalizes 
the husband and father, oppresses the long-suffering wife and 
spares not the babe in its cradle!' Oh, in this grand move¬ 
ment for the amelioration of man’s woes, the deepest feelings 
of the human heart have been touched. Only an evil entail¬ 
ing such wide-spread misery and crime could force the union 
of men and women and children of all ages, races and con¬ 
ditions in one catholic army, sworn to wipe out the curse from 
the face of the earth! Yes, we mean war, irrepressible war 
upon liquor-selling and liquor-drinking. The liquor traffic in 
many portions of this country has been crippled, but not yet 
extirpated; the finger-marks of the law are upon the throat of 
the red dragon, but it is not yet strangled. I now and fore- 
ever declare myself, with the help of God, the unswerving 
enemy of the license system in all its forms and under any 
circumstances. It is the monster crime of the age and should 
be speedily blotted out of existence. Instead of fostering the 




11 


saloon, the law should protect the home. The people must be 
educated to look upon this matter in all its terrible reality. 
Yes, even now the rising tide of a Christian civilization is bear¬ 
ing upon its crest the life-boat of home protection. 

The subserviency of some so-called temperance people to 
the liquor interests is something amazing. In the primaries 
and. conventions of the old parties you find the saloon-keeper 
and the anti-saloonist, seated side by side, engaged in nominat" 
ing the party ticket. Now, I ask, who nearly always controls 
the caucuses and conventions of the old parties? The liquor- 
dealer or his henchmen! If a temperance man is placed upon 
the ticket, it is by permission of the liquor dictators as a con¬ 
cession to the temperance vote. If a temperance measure or 
resolution is passed, its force is almost invariably weakened 
by an operation which designing politicians know so well how 
to perform. The anti-saloonists ignore the fact that they are 
being led by the nose, but boast over their success in getting 
a candidate upon the ticket and thus blindly play into the 
hands of the drunkard-makers. The anti-saloonists are here¬ 
by warned not to get into the habit of coquetting with the old 
parties—it is too much like eating soup with a fork. But we 
should not criticize the anti-saloonists too severely, for they serve 
a useful purpose in showing the true relation of the old parties 
to the liquor dragon. From the facile pen of Albert Griffin 
wo learn of the hopeless subserviency of the Democratic party 
to the liquor interests. From the silver tongue of Senator 
Colquitt we learn how the Republican party is down in the 
mud before the liquor power of the nation. 

I want to say that we have come to a time when no man 
can class himself a true defender of the American home or can 
remain loyal to the teachings and precepts of the Christian 
faith and the declarations of our church conferences and con¬ 
ventions upon the subject of prohibition and lit the same time 
refuse to cast his vote and influence with the Prohibition party. 
I want to ask you of the old parties who are laymen, class- 
leaders, superintendents of Sunday schools and ministers. of 
the gospel—what are your feelings when you realize that 
there are license men, saloon-keepers, brewers and distillers in 
the same .caucus or convention with you, who are working and 
voting for the same ticket and who firmly believe that their 




12 


course of action build? up the interests of the infamous business 
in which they are engaged. “How can you pray, as I’ve 
heard some, ‘Thy kingdom come’—then vote for rum?” You 
may be as sincere as you please in casting your ballot for one 
of the old whisky parties, but that does not change the effect 
of your vote one iota. Your influence is cast with the saloon 
and its . interests and all your protestations of sincerity can not 
make it weigh for the home. It is not the voter’s intention, 
but the character of the ballot he casts which effects the result. 

It may be well for us to consider for a moment the 
function of the ballot in American polity. I will give you a 
brief definition: “A ballot is the register, iff legal form, of the 
elector’s will upon a public question.” It extends not only to 
measures, but also to men commissioned to carry them out. 
But some one says: “You Prohibitionists vote in the air. I 
don’t want to throw my vote away.” Ladies and gentlemen, I 
would rather vote in the air every time than in the mud. If 
every vote that is not cast for the winning candidate Is lost, 
then millions of our voters yearly exercise their right of fran¬ 
chise to no purpose. This view of the duty and effect of 
suffrage is a totally wrong conception. The vote that fails to 
elect is by no means thrown away. If you grant that every ballot 
at the last election represented the conscientious convictions of 
the elector who cast it, then it follows that not one vote; was 
thrown away. All history teaches us that an act for con¬ 
science’s sake is never lost. Right and wrong are not ques¬ 
tions of majorities. The fear of defeat operates as a salutary 
check upon the action of political parties and is the only 
peaceful method by which the dominant majority can be com¬ 
pelled to respect the inalienable rights of the minority. Every 
grand reform of history—social, political or scientific—was 
once in the minority and was enabled to become the majority 
only by the loyal persistence of its advocates. 

Why, then, a national Prohibition party ? First, because it 
will divide the white and the colored vote of the south upon 
ne^ lines and thus solve the troublesome race problem and 
guarantee the free ballot and fair count, which the twenty- 
four years of Republican grille have failed to secure. The 
purity of elections in the south will never be fully attained 
until the negro vote is divided. The whole tendency of the 







13 


old party methods is to keep that vote solid for the Republi¬ 
can party and the white vote the property of the Democratic 
party—thus perpetuating the natural find inherited enmity 
between the two races, instead of subduing it into a kindly 
consideration for each other’s interests. The success of the 
Prohibition party at the polls will wipe out sectional 
animosities and race prejudices, promote national unity and 
conserve the general welfare. The Chicago Tribune says that 
not the tariff, but a free ballot and a fair count in the southern 
states, is the one dominating issue of this campaign. The 
Republican policy of waving the bloody shirt and forcing a 
solid south will never attain the desired end. Upon the con¬ 
trary it serves to perpetuate the sectional hate, which ought to 
have been buried long ago in order that complete national 
unity might be attained. The time has come to bury these 
differences, re-form the lines and take up new issues for 
settlement. As Americans, let us turn our faces to the rising 
sun of progress! 

The Republican party claims to be the loyal party, 
par excellence , of the country. I want to say that whatever 
blame was attached to the institution of slavery, the whole 
country shared it more or less. Treason is dead to-day. 
Under any circumstances it will stand a very poor show if it 
ever lifts its serpent head again. No party in the field mo¬ 
nopolizes all the loyalty to the old standard of our fathers. 
If the grand old flag of our country were insulted, the young 
men of the nation would spring to its defence as one man, and 
we should not stop to assure ourselves whether we were 
Republicans, Democrats or Prohibitionists. I solemnly believe 
that the most patriotic sons and daughters of the nation to-day 
are those who are seeking the destruction of her greatest enemy, 
the legalized liquor traffic, which the Republican and Demo¬ 
cratic parties are fostering. If there are any traitors in the 
country to-day, it is those who are nursing in her bosom 
this venomous reptile, which, if not destroyed, will sooner or 
later accomplish her ruin. 

In vain has the Red Dragon taken up his position 
behind the throne of the American government. The Ameri¬ 
can saloon is doomed when the Prohibition party acceeds to 
power. No well informed person can conscientiously claim 



14 


that the interests of the liquor traffic will suffer by the success 
of either of the old parties. Neither will abolish the traffic. 
Both have had abundant opportunity to do so, had they, 
desired. Instead of abolishing the liquor traffic, they have 
afforded it legal protection. Taxation and license are their 
policy. With a Republican and a Democratic saloon in the 
national capitol, saloons in the District of Columbia and the 
territories, the liquor traffic flourishing and increasing almost 
everywhere, how long, I ask, will it take the policy of the old 
parties to rid us of the saloon curse ? The liquor-dealers do 
not fear either national party. There is a well-organized 
liquor faction in each. They have the old parties by the 
throat and can effectually prevent the passage of any measure 
inimical to their interests. . 

T want to say to the politicians of the two old organiza¬ 
tions that there is outside of the Republican and the Demo¬ 
cratic parties a large and increasing body of conscientious, 
patriotic voters, engaged in building up the Prohibition party* 
who already exercise a powerful influence upon the political 
contests of the day and who are fated ere long themselves to 
guide the destinies of this gxeat nation. I can not offer the 
politicians more friendly advice than this: that they repent 
and flee from the wrath to come. I advise them to get under 
cover and escape the big cyclone which has made its appear¬ 
ance in the political horizon. We give fair warning that 
every politician that remains out during the storm will catch 
his death cold! This body of independent voters is a mighty 
force and can not be bought off, begged off or bulldozed off 
from the accomplishment of its purpose bv all the blood¬ 
stained money in the coffers of the liquor power of this nation. 
It will sooner or later put an end to the infamous traffic in 
alcoholic liquors and its child—political skull-duggery. The 
one consoling thought in this age of partisan chicanery and 
social corruption is the existence of this purifying force, which 
is destined, in the logical course of events, to achieve victory 
for the cause of temperance, morality and political purity. 

Did you ever hear of a temperance Democrat changing 
his political faith to Republicanism because of that party’s 
stand upon the question of destroying the liquor curse; or of a 
temperance Republican joining the Democracy because of 





that party’s stand upon the question ? If any such cases have 
been discovered, they are curiosities indeed. Upon the con¬ 
trary the Prohibition party is receiving many accessions from 
the ranks of the two old parties, because of the more and more 
open and shameless subserviency of those parties to the liquor 
power. The Prohibition party is the only one not under the 
control of the saloon, the only party which stands for home 
protection, the only one committed openly and unequivocally 
to the prohibition of the saloon, the only party which opposes 
tax and license in any form and under any circumstances, 
the only one which can and will give us prohibition, not only 
upon the statute book, but as an actual, living fact. 

I want to impress upon you of the Republican party, and 
it cannot be urged too strongly, that you cannot unite the 
prohibition sentiment of this country in your party. Partisan 
hatred, prejudices and associations will operate to prevent any 
such consummation. Democrats hate the name of Republican, 
Republicans hate the name of Democrat. Neither party can 
unite the prohibition vote. What, then, is the conclusion of 
the whole matter? It is this. The only manner in which the 
prohibitionists in both parties can join forces upon this great 
question is by coming out of the old, rum-ruled organizations 
and building up a new party with prohibition for its watch¬ 
word. With the advent upon the field of this new party 
partisan lines must be re-formed. American politics are to be 
revolutionized by this despised third party—destined to be the 
first—which has no repelling associations, no old and worn- 
out issues clinging to its skirts, with the inspiration of a new, 
vital, living issue to bear it on to ultimate success in state and 
nation. 

The meanest man in existence has just been found—and 
naturally enough he lives in Chicago. This bad man was 
accustomed to scatter crumbs daily near a hole in the fence* 
and when his neighbor’s hens flocked through to eat the 
crumbs, he shut them up in his barn to lay. He afterwards 
sold the eggs and pocketed the proceeds. When I read that 
story it reminded me forcibly of the manner in which the old 
parties have scattered their political crumbs near the hole in 
the fence and we Prohibitionists, like the gulls we were, would 
flock obediently through at every presidential election, vote 



16 


the old party ticket and then return. But the break in the 
political fence has been closed and hereafter we Prohibition¬ 
ists propose to give the fruits of our labors to the rightful 
owner, the Prohibition party. 

The claim has been made that Benjamin Harrison, the 
nominee of the Republican party for j^resident, is a “good 
enough temperance man.” If that is the case, it is in spite of 
the fact that he has personally declared his opposition to 
coercive temperance legislation. During the fight for the sub¬ 
mission of a constitutional amendment in Indiana several 
years ago, General Harrison gave expression to the remark: 
“I do not believe in state prohibition as the best method of 
dealing with this question.” Any man who makes such a 
stab at the cause of home protection is not a “good enough 
temperance man” and will not receive the support of con¬ 
sistent prohibitionists. The Indianapolis Journal, his personal 
organ*, affirmed that he is too good a Republican to be a pro¬ 
hibitionist ! If that is the case, he is too good a Republican to 
receive my vote. I have no hesitation this evening in bearing 
testimony to the upright and honorable character of Gen. 
Harrison as a man, and to his clean, temperate personal 
habits, but he entertains views and supports a platform which 
every prohibitionist in the land may with propriety condemn. 
Gen. Clinton B. Fisk would be no more worthy of our votes, 
did he support such views and such a platform. It is prin¬ 
ciples not men which challenge our best thought. Even 
Grover Cleveland has assumed the role of total abstainer and 
Allen Granby Thurman and Levi Parsons Morton may yet 
sign the pledge? Total abstinence is not sufficient, at this 
stage of the reform, to inspire confidence in the leadership of 
any man. We have got past that point. What we demand 
to-day are candidates who are openly and emphatically in 
favor of prohibition of the liquor traffic and who are opposed 
to license and license parties under any circumstances. Timid 
leaders and half-hearted measures will never fill the present 
demands of this great reform movement. 

The Prohibition party has been remarkably happy in its 
choice of standard bearers. Gen. Clinton B. Fisk, the candi¬ 
date of that party for president, is a model Christian gentle¬ 
man and the most .active and prominent layman in the great 



17 


Methodist Episcopal Church. He is much beloved for his la¬ 
bors among the poor and despised of the nation and, he has 
been intimately connected with the educational development 
of the south and some portions of the north. Fisk University, 
of Nashville, Tenn., famous the world around, stands one of 
the monuments to his philanthropic zeal. The negro has had 
cause to bless the day upon which Clinton B. Fisk first saw 
the light. His career as a soldier is highly creditable to him. 
He entered the service as a private upon the day following the 
fall of Fort Sumter and was mustered out at the close of the 
war a brevet major-general. What better testimony could be 
desired to his bravery and efficiency during those trying 
times? Gen. Harrison was a great soldier; Gen. Fisk was as 
great a soldier. The latter enjoyed the highest confidence of 
Pres. Lincoln and Gen. Grant, the latter of whom paid a high 
tribute to his character as a man and a statesman. If sent to 
the White House by the suffrages of the American people, I 
am sure he would grace the presidential chair. 

Dr. John A. Brooks, our nominee for vice-president, is a 
clergyman of the Christian faith. His labors as a worker for 
the Church have resulted in converting thousands. He has 
the reputation of being a genial, sincere, whole-souled gentle¬ 
man. He has accomplished a mighty work for the cause of 
prohibition, yet in harmony with the Prohibition party only 
since 1884. Although in sympathy with slavery and the con¬ 
federate cause when a young man, Dr. Brooks now admits that 
we were right and he was wrong. He sees the error of his 
former opinions, which he entertained as the result of the 
training received from his early surroundings. The stars 
and stripes have to-day no more sincere and loyal adherent 
and no one would spring sooner to its defence. He has 
expended much time and money in the prosecution of his 
labors for prohibition and the cause has to-day few abler or 
worthier champions. He is now giving his entire time to the 
work of freeing this nation from a bondage more terrible than 
that of African slavery. Dr. Brooks is the exponent of the 
new political faith, wherein north and south, forgetting the 
past, clasp friendly hands over Mason and Dixon’s line and 
swear eternal enmity to the drunkard-making 'system of the 
United States and all men and parties that sustain it. When 




18 


we contemplate the life-long labor of love of this man and then 
read the mean, low, contemptible lies published by the paper 
warriors upon the staffs of Republican newspapers, who never 
smelt powder and who know less of war than a kitten does of 
Grecian history, we can then realize to wliat a pass the grand 
old party of moral ideas has been brought. The bruta] 
attacks being made upon Brooks are merely a repetition of 
St. John’s experience in 1884. Nothing will be too coarse or 
vile to be said of him during this campaign. 

I was conversing upon political topics with a Republican 
friend a short time ago and he said: “Roser, you fellows are 
trying to kill the Republican party and place the Demo¬ 
cratic party into power* You want to defeat the only true 
temperance party and let in the free-whisky Democrats.” I 
replied: “What has the Republican party done during its 
twenty-four years’ lease of power to warrant your claim that it 
is the only true temperance party ? If it has diminished the 
consumption of intoxicating beverages or rendered the liquor 
traffic less harmful and less influential, then we shall be com¬ 
pelled at once to consider your claim.” But what 
are the facts in the case? The Republican party came 
into power in 1861. In 1863, the first year under the 
internal revenue system, the per capita consumption of in¬ 
toxicating liquors in this country amounted to two gallons; in 
1884, the last year of Republican rule, the per capita con¬ 
sumption of intoxicating liquors had increased from about two 
gallons to the enormous amount of over ten gallons. And 
the Democratic party is continuing the same policy with 
similar results. That is regulation of a surety. That is 
restriction with a vengeance! 

The New York Dally Tribune of October 11, 1884, con¬ 
tained a letter* from a member of the National Brewers’ Asso¬ 
ciation,; acknowledging, with gratitude, the fostering care of 
the Republican party for the brewing interests. 1 will quote 
you a short extract from his letter: 

“The National Brewers’ Association is now twenty-four 
years old. During all those years the Republicans have been in 
power in national affairs and I sub _:it to every candid brewer, 
be he Democrat or be he Republican, if the brewing interests of 
this country have not grown to immense proportions, if our 




19 


rights and interests have not been protected, fostered and en¬ 
couraged by our government. Remove the tax upon beer and 
within six months brewery property in this country will not be 
worth twenty-five cents upon the dollar.” 

Let us consider for a moment the effect of the national 
whisky tax upon the traffic in liquors. Its first and most 
obvious effect was to eliminate many of the small distilleries 
scattered over the country and to encourage the building up 
of large distilleries with the capacity of thousands daily. The 
manufacture ot whisky was placed in the hands of a few wealthy 
capitalists, who were nothing if not unscrupulous. They soon 
learned the extent of their power and influence. Organization 
was effected and a systematic campaign in the interests of the 
liquor-dealers inaugurated. Whisky rings sprang up, con¬ 
gress was besieged, pools and trusts flourished. Advantage 
was taken of every change in the amount of the tax for 
speculating purposes. The government was defrauded out of 
untold millions of revenue. Even the White House did not 
escape the general contamination: it was at one time under 
the complete control of the whisky oligarchy. To show the 
relation sustained by our government to the liquor interests 
1 cite Mr. C. A. Bates, representative of the United States 
government to the National Brewers’ Congress which met at 
New York, in 1872. In his address to that body Mr. Bates 
said among other things: 

“You have begun well. Let us take no backward step. I 
say us, for I am with you. The commissioner of internal 
revenue is with you. The president is with you. Every 
patriotic citizen is with you, if you hold to your course.” 

This infamous sentiment represents the true relation of 
the liquor traffic to this government ever since it entered the 
disgraceful partnership. It is the dissolution of this legalized 
conspiracy against public morals which Prohibitionists 
demand to-day. The disestablishment of the liquor power 
from its position in official relation to this government must 
be secured to prepare the way for absolute prohibition. You 
old party men scout the idea that the government protects 
and encourages the liquor traffic. Is it not the natural 
inference that it should do so in return for the large revenue 
which it collects thereon? Is it not for the financial benefit 
of the government to foster and build up the manufacture of 




whisky ? Permit me to quote upon this point Senator Lot M. 
Morrill, of Maine, a life-long Republican and Secretary of the 
Treasury during the last year of General Grant's second 
administration. In a speech in the senate of the forty-third 
congress, Mr. Morrill used the following language: 

“Whenever the government lends its moral countenance to, 
and encourages the importation and production of spirits, of 
course you can not, senators will see that it is impossible to, 
control the sale. It becomes popular, it is taken out of the ban 
at once and it increases everywhere. That, I think, is the 
history in this country and elsewhere. It is the natural, it is 
the irresistible effect.” 

It seems strange that the same individuals who condemn 
our high protective tariff as a breeder of rings, monopolies 
and trusts can not perceive that the same result has followed 
the imposition of a tax upon spirits. If there have been an v 
more insufferable combinations against the peace, good order 
and welfare of society than the whisky rings, they have yet 
to be made known. However oppressive a high protective tar¬ 
iff may be upon the laboring classes, I am sure it will not com¬ 
pare with the damning, blighting effects of the liquor traffic 
from either a moral or a financial point of view. 

The history of high license, of which the tax upon spirits 
is an aggravated form, proves it to be a stupendous failure as 
a measure of temperance reform. It suppresses the use of 
alcohol for industrial purposes and increases the consumption 
of intoxicating beverages. It affords protection to the liquor 
traffic from the assaults of the prohibitionists and grants it a 
new lease of life. It solidifies and centralizes the traffic and 
renders it a greater power for evil. Until removed, it must 
remain the greatest obstacle to the adoption of prohibition. 

The Republican party is a license party and the Demo¬ 
cratic party is a license party. The Republican 
party is a liquor party and the Democratic party is ’ a 
liquor party. Vote for either Cleveland or Harrison and 
you vote for the domination of the A merican saloon with all 
its blighting, blasting influences. Both of these men were 
nominated by conventions that were half drunk. This is a 
serious charge to make, but I can substantiate it, and for 
witnesses I will summon not Prohibitionists, but members of 
the good, reliable old party press. 







21 


Let us turn our attention first to the history of the recent 
Republican convention at Chicago. According to the Inter- 
Ocean an orthodox Republican organ, the Milwaukee brewers 
were compelled to send down to Chicago during convention 
week, 500 car-loads, or 62,500 barrels of beer, above the usual 
supply. Upon this liquor alone the Chicago saloon-keepers 
cleared $750,000 and the Milwaukee brewers pocketed 
$500,000. From the columns of the Northwestern Christian 
Advocate I gather the following alleged facts in regard to the 
drunkenness at the convention. As you are aware, the 
Advocate is the organ of the M. E. Church for the north¬ 
western states. Dr. Arthur Edwards, the editor, is a loyal 
Republican. If this description constitutes abuse, then a 
Republican religious journal is guilty of it. According to the 
Advocate, the California delegation came to the convention in 
a special train, with 250 cases of assorted liquors, half a dozen 
brands of brandies and four barrels of port, claret and sherry, 
valued at $1200. They opened a free bar at the Leland 
Hotel and furnished three colored bar-tenders to wait upon the 
thirsty crowd. Upon a wall of the bar-room hung a large 
portrait of James G. Blaine. At the Grand Pacific Hotel, 
the bar, which is as long as a lake steamer, opened directly 
into the headquarters of the Ohio delegation and was within a 
few steps of the headquarters of the presidential candidates. 
The great bar-rooms and gorgeous cafes in the Vicinity 
of the convention hall and the headquarters of the candidates 
fairly swarmed. All day Sunday the high license saloons 
were open and there was an mfo-saloon Republican movement 
of vast proportions. Indeed, the mfo-saloon movement from 
first to last, was vastly more formidable than the emfo’-saloon 
movement ever was. In fine, it was one vast, drunken 
carousal. Of course, there were temperance men among the 
delegates, but they cut no figure and the bar-keepers did not 
miss them. 

The train which bore westward the great liquor- 
dealers of New York, Sheridan Shook, “Wicked” Gibbs> 
“Jake” Hess and others brought case upon case of liquors 
of all kinds. The same was true of the train which brought 
Frank J. Carroll, Dennis Shea, Barney Biglin and other 
shining] lights of the grand old party. Upon a special Sunday 



22 


train were John J. O’Brien, “Silver Dollar” Smith, Barney 
O’Rourke, and their followers. The run of this train from 
New York to Chicago was characterized by scenes of a most 
shameless nature. At Ypsilanti, Michigan, a great rush was made 
for the Neal House and the bar-keeper was compelled to open 
against his protest, and contrary to law. Fifty men from the 
train entered this bar-room during the five minute stop. At 
Jackson, scores of bottles were filled and carried in open sight 
upon the train. At Marshal, no saloon could be found and the 
Republican liquor men left with many maledictions upon the 
unfortunate dry town. At Niles, the nearest bar-room is two 
rods from the station, but the train stopped long enough for 
twenty-eight men to enter and fill up again. These are 
merely samples of some of the delegates that helped to nomi¬ 
nate the presidential candidates of the only true temperance 
party! 

A gentleman writing to the New York Vowe gives his 
experience as follows: 

“I wish every Christian minister and every lover of good 
society who is clinging to the remnants of the old party of morals 
could have stood with me amidst the delegates to the Republican 
National Convention at Chicago and looked at the rum-soaked 
faces and bleared eyes, have seen them crowding the high-li- 
cense saloons, or staggering through the streets, and heard their 
drunken speeches. I, indeed, felt ashamed even to be found 
standing with them. How much more ashamed, then, should 
one fe&l in being found voting with or for them. Leonard 
Swett said in substance in nominating his candidate: ‘The 
Republican party is broken in fragments.’ Why should it not 
be broken, when such men as these are sent to its national con¬ 
vention? One of these delegates said, ‘I am a delegate from 
hell.’ No one doubted his assertion. Many more might have 
claimed such a constituency without exciting doubt in the minds 
o;f their hearers.” 

At Saint Louis, the scenes were of a similar nature, though 
not quite so open or shameless. Sunday was a comparatively 
quiet day, nearly all the saloons having been closed by the 
city police under the state Sabbath law, notwithstanding the 
fact that the city of Saint Louis and the state of Missouri are 
under Democratic rule. You will remember that the city of 
Chicago and the state of Illinois are under Republican con¬ 
trol. I was told by a delegate to the Saint Louis convention 
that so far as lie could discover (and he took particular pains 



23 


to / Uidy the situation,) not a southern delegation furnished 
liquor at its headquarters. He visited many of them person¬ 
ally and was proffered refreshments in the form of fruits and 
non-alcoholic beverages, but no liquors were to be had. I 
want to say that there are more anti-saloon Democrats than 
many believe. They do not make so much noise as the anti¬ 
saloon Republicans, but they are entitled to the credit of hav¬ 
ing achieved some practical results in their section of the 
country. 

A Baptist minister of Kansas, after visiting both conven¬ 
tions, exclaimed: “I saw more liquor-drinking in Saint Louis 
than I had seen before in fifteen years, but I saw more liquor- 
driuking in Chicago during the Republican convention 
than I had seen before in all my life. I am thoroughly 
satisfied and from this time on am a party Prohibitionist.” 
A leading clergyman of Nebraska visited the Chicago con¬ 
vention as a Republican and returned a strong Prohibitionist. 
It is safe to say that if every temperance Republican and every 
temperance Democrat had attended these two great conven¬ 
tions, a large proportion of them would have renounced their 
old faith. Ladies and gentlemen, it seems to me that the time 
has indeed come to administer a scathing rebuke to this dis¬ 
graceful method of presenting candidates for the suffrages of 
the American people! 

The manner in which the prohibitionists were snubbed at 
these two great conventions ought to be sufficient to driv e 
every sincere, thoughtful prohibitionist into the Prohibition 
party. Some of the most prominent ladies of the southern 
states sent up a petition to the Democratic convention at 
St. Louis, asking them to leave out of their platform that old 
stale declaration against sumptuary laws and to adopt in its 
place a resolution in favor of abolishing the licensed saloon. 
What did they get in response to their appeal ? It is true 
that the sumptuary plank was omitted, but it was re-affirmed 
with the rest of the platform of 1884, and no declaration 
against the liquor traffic was adopted. Thus were these wives 
and mothers contemptuously turned away without remedy 
against the destroyer of their homes. 

At Chicago, the anti-saloon Republicans made a similar 
request and they likewise received only contempt and repulse. 



24 


The platform maintained a profound silence upon the issue of 
prohibition, while at the same time re-affirming the ihfamous 
Raster resolution of 1872, declaring in favor of the personal 
liberties of the citizens and the contingent repeal of the 
national whisky tax. Herman Raster, the editor of the 
Illinois Staats Zeitung , said of the Republican platform: 
“Under the circumstances it is a liquor and personal liberty 
platform.” The leading Republican liquor-dealers expressed' 
their satisfaction with it as it came from the hands of the 
committee upon resolutions. The only complaint that was 
made came from Albert Griffin and his followers, who had 
labored so hard before the committee to secure the adoption of 
an anti-saloon plank. The opposition was led by Senator C. 
B. Palmer, of Illinois, and Hon. W. E. Carter, of Wisconsin. 
Mr. Carter is reported by the Even ing Wisconsin, of Milwaukee, 
to have made the following speech before the committee. I 
will state that I am personally acquainted with Mr. Carter, 
and my impression is that the gentleman has been reported 
correctly in this instance, at least substantially. Mr. Carter 
said: 

“Gentlemen, we are temperance men ourselves, but we "re 
not here for temperance, but for party success. We warn you 
that any temperance declaration in your platform will lose us 
the liquor and German vote, and will lose the party the states 
of Wisconsin, Minnesota and Illinois. Can you afford to lose 
those states ?” 

The advice of these gentlemen was taken and the plank 
rejected. The platform as reported by the committee was 
adopted by the convention without one dissenting voice. But 
during the days following, the anti-saloonists were not idle. 
Something must be done to save the grand old party. It, was 
decided to offer a resolution at the last moment and Congress¬ 
man Boutelle, of Maine, was commissioned to introduce it. 
The resolution read as follows: 

“ Resolved , that the first concern of all good government is the 
virtue and sobriety of the people and the purity of their homes. 
The Republican party sympathizes with all wise and well-di¬ 
rected efforts f<>r the promotion of temperance and morality.” 

This resolution reminds me very much of a certain man a 
Chicago paper tells about. He was obliged to stand up three 
times in the same spot to cast a shadow, he was so exceedingly 
thin: At first there was great opposition manifested -to the 





25 


reading of the resolution, the impression having spread that it 
was a declaration against the liquor traffic, but when the lan - 
guage of it was understood, it was adopted without ado, only 
one delegate, it is said, voting against it. It is to be presumed 
that the liquor-dealers in the convention voted in favor of the 
codicile, there being no opposition discernible. This resolu¬ 
tion sounds very much like the one adopted at the first 
meeting of the National Protective Association of distillers, 
which was held iu Chicago, in October, 1886. The dif¬ 
ference between the two resolutions seems to turn upon the fact 
that the liquor-dealers declared more strongly than the Repub¬ 
licans in favor of “temperance and morality.” I will quote 
you that resolution: 

“ Resolved, that we most earnestly favor temperance and most 
strongly condemn intemperance. 

“Resolved , that we are in favor of both public and private 
morality and good order and popular education.” 

A North Carolina editor, who publishes a Prohibition 
party paper, reports an amusing incident in this connection. 
He says that he placed these two resolutions upon the desk in 
his sanctum, with the intention of publishing them in his paper 
in parallel columns, to show their similarity to each other. 
In the mean time a gust of wind came in at the window and 
swept the slips of paper to the floor, where they were mixed. 
He has spent the time since in trying to solve the perplexing 
problem of distinguishing between them. It is said that 
Sheridan Shook, a prominent brewer of New York, gave his 
approval of the Republican resolution in the following words: 
“1 am certainly not opposed to it. There is nothing stronger 
there than a pleasant dose of catnip tea. Why, we brewers 
went further than that at our last meeting.” So Sheridan 
Shook and his friends were made happy, and Albert Griffin 
and his followers were made happy, and on the sixth of 
November next both parties will march up to the polls and 
cast their ballot for Harrison and Morton and—temperance. 

Dr. T. L. Cuyler and Dr. R. S. Storrs, the well-known 
preachers of Brooklyn, life-long Republicans, denounced the 
free whisky and high tariff platform of the Republicans when 
it was adopted, and threatened to “take to the woods.” They 
have since recovered their good humor somewhat, and now 









26 * 


declare in substance as follows: “We are strongly opposed to 
free whisky and the retention of oppressive war taxes,' but 
nevertheless we shall vote the old party ticket. We cannot 
desert the old Republican party and let in the bad Democrats .’* 
These men represent a large class in the Republican party. 1 
want to ask these worthy gentlemen just one question. If you 
give your votes to a party when it goes astray, what incentive 
do you furnish it to correct its action and do right ? Political 
wisdom says: Show your disapproval of a party’s wrong 
doing by rebuking it where the rebuke will be felt —at thepolls. 
As long as the leaders of the old parties have the assurance 
that the prohibition element will not desert them under any 
circumstances, just so long will they continue to ignore their 
demands. The history of the movement in the prohibitory 
states fully bears out this affirmation. 

We are met sometimes with the stale, worn-out argument, 
never having the slightest foundation in truth, that the Re¬ 
publican party has given us all the prohibitory legislation we 
ever had. This absurd claim is made either by those who do 
not know the facts in the case, and who seem to care less, or 
by those who cunningly pervert the truth in order to forward 
their base designs. I want to brand the statement right here 
as false in every word and letter of it. No thoughtful, candid 
person would make such claim at this stage of the reform. 
The great Maine law movement, which is the basis of the 
present political temperance reform, had swept a dozen states 
before the Republican party was born ! Strange as it may 
seem, it is nevertheless true, that the Democratic party has 
passed prohibitory laws in thirteen states, the Whig party in 
three states, the American party in two and the Know 
Nothings in one state. Since the organization of the 
Republican party, prohibition has been adopted by eight 
states while they were under the control of that party. 
When we come to examine the debtor side of the ledger 
we find that eight states have dropped prohibition while under 
Republican rule and six states have dropped prohibition 
while under Democratic control. It seems from this that 
the Republic ns have been the more inclined to respond to 
the demands of the whisky power. 

It is the hight of demagogery for any one to maintain 




27 


that the credit for enacting all the temperance legislation in 
this country is due to any one party. There has not been a 
political party for fifty years which has not been more or less 
swayed by the force of the temperance sentiment which lias 
been steadily gathering through the century.* I want to say 
that the Prohibition party is receiving many accessions from 
the ranks of the Democratic party. Before election we shall 
have an electoral ticket in the field in every southern state. 
The south, the stronghold of Democracy, is ripe for the new 
crusade, and although, as in the north, political hucksters and 
broken down politicians are trying to head off the movement 
for fear of its effect upon the prospects of the Democratic 
party, nevertheless their efforts will be as fruitless as those of 
their Republican brethren in the north. The tide of political 
prohibition is sweeping over the country with resistless force. 
Whoever attempts to check its onward course will be swept 
under a-> though of no more importance than a straw. 

During the last campaign we were told of the direful re¬ 
sults that would happen if the Democrats came into power. 
The rebel soldiers would be pensioned, slavery re-established, 
the confederate war debt paid, the crops would fail, floods and 
blizzards would prevail, the grasshoppers wo uld fatten on the 
land and the sun and moon and stars would be blotted out of 
existence! Almost four years have passed since then, during 
which the Democrats have been in power. The confederates 
have not been pensioned nor the negroes re-enslaved, the crops 
have been above the average, the grasshoppers have forgotten 

*The New York Voice has carefully collated, and in its issue of July 26th last pub. 
lishes, statistics bearing upon this question. The Voice is excellent authority, and i 
quote from it here in reply to the claim referred to in the text. According to this 
table the following states have adopted prohibition while under Republican control: 
New York, i 855; Michigan, 1855; New Hampshire, 1855; Maine, 1858; Massachusetts, 
1869; Rhode Island, 1874; Kansas, 1881; Iowa, 1884; Rhode Island, 1886. The following 
have dropped prohibition while under Republican control: New York, 1855; Iowa, 
1856; Indiana, 1858; Rhode Island, 1863; Nebraska, 1867; Massachusetts, 1868; Con' 
necticut, 1872; Massachusetts, 1875; Michigan, 1875; Rhode Island, 1875. The following 
states have adopted prohibition while under Democratic control: Maine, 1846 and 
1851; Illinois,'851; Minnesota, 1852; R. I., 1852; Massachusetts, >852; Michigan, '853; Ohio, 
1854; Iowa, 1855; Indiana, 1855; Nebraska, 1855; Mississippi, 1855; exas, 1855; South 
Carolina, 881. The following have dropped prohibition while under Democratic con¬ 
trol: Massachusetts, 1853; Illinois, 1853; Maine, 1856; Pennsylvania, 1856; Ohio, 1859; 
Texas, 1876. The Whigs enacted prohibitory laws in Vermont, 1852; Connecticut, 1854; 
Pennsylvania, 1855. The American party passed a prohibitory law in Massachusetts in 
1855 and another in Delaware in the same year, but repealed the latter in 1857. The 
Know Nothings enacted a prohibitory law in Rhode Island in 1855. 





28 


the program, for they have failed to put in an appearance, and 
the sun sends down his shining rays, and the moon her silvery 
beams and the stars their glimmering pencils of light, very 
much the same *as since the creation of the world. I challenge 
you to indicate to me any appreciable difference in the material 
prosperity of our country under the administrations of the two 
old parties. This cry is simply a blind to cover the machina¬ 
tions of designing politicians. 

The whips of the politicians are becoming more and more 
powerless to drive the intelligent, conscientious voters back into 
the ranks of the old parties. I am reminded of a story which 
comes from the east, and as it was told by a Yankee sportsman, 
it must be true. He was explaining how he had won a cer¬ 
tain race. For four weeks he mixed soft rubber with his horse’s 
oats and every day he took the horse out, tied him to a post and 
opened a blue cotton umbrella in his face, causing him to pull 
, back, stretching his neck to a fearful extent. Then he would shut 
the umbrella, the horse would stop pulling and his neck 
would resume its original length. He succeeded in getting the 
horse’s neck very elastic and upon the day of the race, when 
the animals were upon the home stretch, side by side, just at 
the finish, the driver gave this man’s horse a sharp blow be¬ 
hind the ears—and his neck shot out almost a rod, winning 
the race by a neck ! So the Republican party has at every presi¬ 
dential election mixed free trade, bloody shirt and rebel pensions 
with our political oats and an extra hard blow of the party 
whip just before election sent the Republican horse under the 
wire a neck ahead. But in 1884 the scheme did not seem to 
succeed. The old nag failed to respond to the touch of the 
driver and the Democratic animal won the race ! 

The political wire-pullers are trying to blind the eyes of the 
people to the true issues of this campaign. I want to say this 
evening that the protection of the homes of our land from the 
overshadowing curse of drunkard-making is the real issue in 
American politics to-day, and will remain so until it is settled 
and settled right—in favor of the home. The Prohibition 
party is the only party which deserves success at the ballot-box, 
for it is the only party squarely committed to the cause of 
home-protection and the rights ot women. America’s man¬ 
hood is half drunk to-day! What we must attain is a sober, 



intelligent citizenship, in order that the performance of the 
important duties devolving upon it may justify the American 
plan, which crowns every man a king in his own right. 

There is no essential difference between the two old parties 
to-dav. I say essential difference. They are both after the 
saloon vote. In their view the offices are all there is worth 
fighting for. “Turn the rascals out!” and “keep the rascals 
out!” are their slogans of war. To what a pass are they 
brought in their old age. Have you ever compared the two 
platforms upon which they fought out their last campaign '{ 
They do not join issue upon a single public question. Unless 
you have committed the language of these platforms, I warrant 
that there is not a Republican, Democrat or Prohibitionist 
before me who can distinguish between the planks as I read them: 

COMPARISON OF THE PLATFORMS OF 1884. 

Republican. Democratic. 

1. Currency. 


We favor an honest currency 
. .. .We have always recom¬ 
mended the best money . .. . 
and we urge.. . .an internation¬ 
al standard... .of gold and 
silver coinage. 


We believe in honest money, 
the gold and silver coinage cf 
the constitution and a circulat¬ 
ing medium convertible into 
such medium without loss. 


2. Purtty of Elections. 

The perpetuity of our insti- e believe in a free ballot 

tutions rests upon a free ballot, and a fair count, 
an honest count and correct 
returns. 


3. Chinese 

We pledge ourselves to sus¬ 
tain the present law restricting 
Chinese immigration. 


Immigration. 

American civilization de¬ 
mands that against the immi¬ 
gration of the Mongolian to 
these shores our gates be closed 


4. Foreign Policy. 


We favor an American con¬ 
tinental policy based upon 
more intimate commercial and 
political relations with the 
fifteen American republics. 

5. Civil Service Reform. 

Reform of the civil service I We favor honest civil ser- 
should be completed. i vice reform. 


We favor a policy which 
seeks peace and trade with all 
powers, but especially with 
those of the western hemi- 


f>. State 

The national government is 
supreme within the sphere of 
its national duties, but the 
states have reserved rights 
which should be faithfully 
maintained. 


Rights 

The reserved rights of the 
states and the supremacy of 
the federal government within 
the limits of the constitution 
will ever form the true basis 
I of our liberties. 








30 




7. Public 

The public lands, as far as 
possible, should be reserved 

.for small holdings by 

actual settlers. We demand 
.the forfeiture of all un¬ 
earned land grants. 

8. Civil 

We pledge ourselves to such 
legislation as will secure to 
every citizen of whatever race 
or color, the full and complete 
recognition, possession, and 
exercise of all civil and politi¬ 
cal rights. I 

9. Territorial 

® Appointments to federal of¬ 
fices in the territories should 
be made from the bona fi'le 
citizens and residents of the 
territories where they are to 
serve. 

10. Protection to 

We believe that everywhere 
the protection to a citizen of 
American birth must be se¬ 
cured to citizens of American 
adoption. 


Lands. 

The public lands ought, as 
far as possible, to be kept as 
homesteads for actual settlers. 
All unearned land grants 
should be restored to the 
public domain. 

Rights. 

We hold that equal and 
exact justice should be meted 
out to all citizens of whatever 
nativity, race, color, or per¬ 
suasion, religious or political. 


Appointments. 

The selection of federal of¬ 
ficers for the territories should 
be restricted to citizens pre¬ 
viously resident therein. 


American Citizens. 

It is an imperative duty of 
this government to efficiently 
protect all rights of person 
and property of every Ameri¬ 
can citizen in foreign lands. 


11. Pensions. 


We stand pledged to suitable 
pensions for all who were dis¬ 
abled in the late war and for 
the widows and orphans of 
those who died. 


The internal revenue, as long 
as it continues, should be made 
a fund to defray the expense of 
the care and comfort of worthy 
soldiers disabled in the line of 
duty in the wars of the repub¬ 
lic and for the payment of such 
pensions as congress may, 
from time to time, grant to 
such soldiers. 


12. Surplus. 


We pledge ourselves to re- | All taxation shall be limited 
duce the surplus. i to the requirements of econo- 

! mical government. 

13. Tariff. 


We pledge ourselves to cor¬ 
rect the inequalities of the 
tariff. We demand that the 
imposition of duties shall be 
made not for revenue only, 
but to afford security to our 
diversified industries and pro¬ 
tection to the rights and 
wages of the laborer. 


We pledge ourselves to re¬ 
vise the tariff in a spirit of 
fairness to all. But in making 
a reduction of taxes it is not 
proposed to injure any domes¬ 
tic industry, but rather to pro¬ 
mote their healthy growth. 














31 

The national conventions of 1888 reaffirmed these plat¬ 
forms of 1884 and if the word reaffirm means anything, it 
means that they are good doctrine with the old parties to-day. 
It is true that the politicians are striving to make the tariff 
question the dividing issue. You have all heard much of the 
Mills bill, which passed the House of Representatives some 
time ago. It was an administration measure and according 
to the estimate of the committee on ways and means would re¬ 
duce the national revenue about sixty-five millions of dollars 
($65,000,000). The Democrats voted for the bill and the 
Republicans opposed its passage. Why ? Because it would 
revise the present tariff system and reduce the surplus? Not 
at all. I have shown you that the Republicans, as well as 
the Democrats, through their great leaders and their con¬ 
ventions, have declared in favor of tariff revision. The 
.members voted almost to a man as the party dictum demand¬ 
ed. The Republicans declared: “The tariff is in the hands 
of its enemies for revision. This bill is partial in its pro¬ 
visions. It does not place the right articles upon the free list. 
It makes too much of a reduction upon certain articles and not 
enough upon others. We believe in tariff reform, but if this 
bill becomes a law, the commercial interests of the country 
must suffer.” It was a partisan aggression and a partisan 
opposition. Similar objections would have been urged against 
any measure which the Democrats could have devised.. Both 
parties have feared that their old enemy would gain political 
capital by lowering the taxes of the people. The Republicans 
denounced the Mills bill as a free trade measure. They de¬ 
clared that it was “simply an entering wedge, the first step 
toward absolute free trade.” Now, let us consider this argu¬ 
ment for a moment. When the Mills bill went to the Senate 
for their consideration, the committee to whom it was referred, 
by majority report, recommended the substitution of the so- 
called Republican tariff bill, which would reduce the revenue 
about seventy-five millions of dollars ($75,000,000). Immed¬ 
iately the Democratic leaders and journals denounced this 
measure in scathing terms, as being unwise in the extreme 
and threatening the prosperity of the nation. Now, according 
to my logic, if the Mills bill renders the Democratic party a 
free trade party because of a proposed reduction of sixty-five 



32 


millions of dollars ($65,000,000) in the revenues, then the 
Senate tariff bill, by reason of its reduction of seventy-five 
millions of dollars ($75,000,000) renders the Republican party 
a freer trade party by ten millions of dollars ($10,000,000)! 

Permit me to spend a few moments in giving the A. R. 
C; of the tariff question as 1 view it. First I ask that you 
grant this premise; namely, that the cost of production of many 
articles of import and of shipping to America is less in foreign 
lands than in this country. Having for the sake of argument 
taken this to be a fact which might be proved to your satisfac¬ 
tion, I ask your attention for just a moment while I give the 

A. B. C. OF THE TARIFF QUESTION. 


Articles 
of . 
import 
into the 
United 
States. 


Articles 

of 

import 
to be 
taxed. 


Articles ( 
•of 

import -{ 
not to be | 
taxed. 


1. High 
Tariff*. 


2. Moderate 
Tariff 


The duty exceeds the 
difference between the cost 
of production and may be 
prohibitive. Under these 
conditions the American 
manufacturer has the ad¬ 
vantage over his foreign 
competitor. 

f The duty equals the 
difference between the cost 
of production and favors 
the universal well-being. 
The foreign and the Amer¬ 
ican manufacturer stand 
upon the same footing. 
Other things being equal, 
luxuries should receiv 
the tax. This is the true 


( protective system. 

The duty is less than 
the difference between the 
cost of production and 
may result in practical 
| free trade. The foreign 
| manufacturer has the ad- 
| vantage over the Ameri- 
I can competitor. 

1. Those to the manufacture of which 
the climatic and other conditions in this 
country are unfavorable. 

2. Raw materials and the so-called 
necessaries of life should, other things 
being equal, be placed upon the free list. 


3. Low 
Tariff. 













It will be seen that the great desideratum must always be the 
placing of the proper articles upon the free list and the impo¬ 
sition of the exact per centum of duty upon articles which in 
ftict need protection, in order that the rights of the whole 
people may be perpetuated and the general well-being con¬ 
served, the interests of the legitimate American manufacturer 
forwarded and the welfare and prosperity of the wage-earning 
laborer carefully regarded. He who fulfils the requirement 
and solves this perplexing problem must have at command a 
most intimate knowledge of practical economics, such as few 
possess. Now, I do not profess to be thoroughly posted upon 
this much-mooted tariff question. I shall not attempt to discuss 
all the whys and wherefores of this intricate subject. What I 
aim to show is, that the tariff question is not a dividing issue 
in American politics. Although the vast majority of the 
people are clearly in favor of tariff reform, there is such a 
wide divergence of views as to the details in carrying it to 
successful consummation, that no political party has a well- 
defined policy upon the subject. No radical change in the 
tariff is proposed by either party nor would it be permitted by 
either. All parties cherish similar purposes upon the questions 
of tariff, surplus and labor. 

As a matter of fact, the political parties of this country, 
as represented by the best thought within those parties, are 
favorable to the policy of a moderate tariff upon imports as be¬ 
fore described, and although there is a wide diversity of 
opinion as to details, yet there is substantial unanimity as to 
the necessity for revision of our present tariff. It could not 
well be otherwise, for the interests of all of us, Democrats, 
Republicans and Prohibitionists, ar$ closely bound up with 
the prosperity of the country. The principle of an economical 
administration of governmental affairs and a system of taxa¬ 
tion limited to its requirements must ultimately triumph. As 
I view it, neither party, in itself, can carry out its promises 
upon the tariff question. The domination of any party means 
the continuation of our present tariff until such a time as the 
demand of the people for tariff reform shall become imperative, 
w'hen it will be consummated by the co-operation of congress¬ 
men from all parties. When the contest comes, the great 
agricultural portions of the country will be found pitted 



34 

against the manufacturing sections. The tariff is a question of 
geography more than anything else. Not principle but pocket- 
book, as a rule, determines one’s position upon the tariff 
question. In other words the tariff is not and from its very* 
nature can not be a strict partisan issue. It will be settled 
upon a non-partisan basis. Even Mr. Blaine, the apostle of 
protection, makes the statement that after a century of agita¬ 
tion upon the subject we are no nearer its final solution. It is 
my belief that the politicians are raising a big dust upon the 
tariff question simply as a blind to the prohibitionists. They 
hope in this way to postpone the settlement of the issue of pro¬ 
hibition, which gives them so much trouble and interferes 
so often with their plans. 

The national surplus, strictly speaking, does not ex¬ 
ceed fifty-six millions of dollars ($56,000,000) per year. 
That, I think, is a fair estimate. It does not include the 
amount paid into the sinking fund for the liquidation of the 
national debt. The burden of taxation, then, can not be 
lessened at present more than that amount. We must raise 
as much money as is needed in the economical administration 
of the government and the most convenient method is by a 
tax upon imports. The question, then, concerns an over-tax¬ 
ation of about fifty-six millions of dollars ($56,000,000) 
annually. That is an average of less than one dollar for 
every man, woman and child in the country or about five 
dollars for every family. What importance, in comparison, 
can this issue have with the drink question, which concerns the 
annual expenditure of at least eight hundred millions of dol¬ 
lars ($800,000,000) for that which not only does not add to 
the comfort and welfare of the people, but which positively in¬ 
jures their health, disturbs their peace and detracts from 
their material prosperity ? If there were no expenditure for 
intoxicating liquors in this country, there would be a yearly 
saving, upon the average, in money alone, of fifteen dollars for 
every man, woman and child, or about seventy dollars, for 
every family. Not only is there a direct loss of over eight 
hundred millions of dollars ($800,000,000) in money, but the 
indirect waste is incalculable. We must estimate the cost of 
the poor-houses, jails, insane hospitals, court-houses, drunkard- 
asylums and kindred institutions made necessary by the drink 





traffic. Tell me the price of a human soul, fix upon the value 
of woman’s happiness and childhood’s innocence and I will give 
you the sum total of the loss occasioned by the accursed liquor 
traffic. The tariff is a question of economical politics; prohi¬ 
bition is not only that, but it nearly concerns the moral wel¬ 
fare of the people as well. I know not what others may 
think, but as for me, I can not see my way clear to vote in 
favor of whisky for the sake of the tariff. The man who 
attempts to kick aside this burning issue of home protection 
for the sake of the tariff question places a higher value upon 
a man’s coat than upon his immortal soul. He tramples un¬ 
der foot the pleading petition of wife and babies to be heard 
now, now, now. 

The Republican party seems to be about equally divided 
in its choice of a rallying cry between “high tariff, Bob Inger- 
soll and bloody shirt” upon the one hand and “hard cider, 
claret punch and free whisky” upon the other. A party that 
is reduced to the point of appealing to the lower instincts and 
passions of men instead of to their calm judgment ought to die- 
I say emphatically that the party which exalts Ingersoll to a 
prominent position in its councils and which permits the 
Bible to be spit upon, as was done in New York City last 
summer, will not receive the influence of my vote, so long as I 
can cast it as a rebuke to such blasphemy as that. 

For the purpose of my argument let us translate Ali Baba 
and his forty thieves, of Arabian fame, to this country and 
age. Suppose that they enter upon the pursuit of their un¬ 
lawful calling. They are indicted by the grand jury and 
brought into court to answer to the charge of murder, robbery, 
and the destruction of property. “Guilty or not guilty ?” 
asks the judge. A minority of the band plead guilty, but the 
remainder through a spokesman respond as follows: “Your 
Honor, we do not favor robbery, murder and the destruction 
of property, but Ali Baba and his lieutenants persist in their 
wicked course and we are powerless to prevent them. “Are 
you guilty or not guilty of the charge ?” repeats the judge. 
‘‘Your Honor,” replies the spokesman, “we hope at some time 
in the future to convert our leaders to our opinion in this mat¬ 
ter. They were heard to say recently, after an unusually long 
and profitable raid, that they cordially sympathize with all 




36 


wise and well-directed efforts for the promotion of honesty and 
law and order.” “That has nothing to do with the case,” 
thunders the judge, “are your guilty or not guilty, as charged 
in the indictment ?” “Your Honor, we presented a poor, 
lone widow the other day with a large ham and a sack of 
potatoes !” In the face of such caviling what is the decision 
of the judge? He replies: “You are in bad company and 
although you claim to harbor good intentions, you are equally 
guilty with those of your band who go forth to rob, murder 
and destroy. Your actions belie your words. You enjoy the 
fruits of wickedness and uphold the hands of evil-doers while 
claiming to be exempt from the consequences of their misdeeds. 
Your hypocritical complicity shall bring upon you the severest 
penalty of the law for a crime of such enormity !” 

Occasionally some one asks: “Why do you expend so 
much of your ammunition upon the Republican party, instead 
of dividing it more equally between the two old parties ?” It 
is not difficult to answer that question. Place the two old 
parties upon trial. Charge them with complicity with the 
liquor traffic in the great crime of drunkard-making. “Guilty 
or not guilty?” ask the American people, who are both judge 
and jury. The Democratic party stands up in the prisoner’s 
box and says: “We plead guilty to the indictment. We are 
opposed to prohibition. We are in favor of drunkard-making. 
We will get down upon our knees if need be to please the liquor 
dealers.” The Democratic party makes this admission with¬ 
out a blush (you could not distinguish it, if the party did 
blush) and gives way to the Republican party. “Guilty or 
not guilty?” “Please, your Honor,” says the Republican 
party, “there are many temperance men in our ranks. They 
hope at some time in the future to get control of the party 
machinery. We cordially sympathize with all wise and well- 
directed efforts for the promotion of temperance and morality. 
We are the only true prohibition party. Why, some time ago 
vre passed a high-license law in the state of Nebraska, and 
recently we enacted a local option law in Michigan. The 
Republican party is the only party that ever did anything for 
temperance.” “But,” say the American people, “are you 
guilty or not guilty of the charge that you are under the con¬ 
trol of the liquor traffic of this country ?” Ah, did you ever 



37 


meet a Republican who would admit that his party is down in 
the mud before the liquor power of America? No, he will not 
admit it: we must prove it. Is not the tremendous effort mak¬ 
ing upon the part of the anti-saloon Republicans to commit the 
party to an endorsement of their principles a virtual admission 
of the charge ? If there is anything I despise, it is a pretentious 
hypocrite, whether it be an individual or a political party. 
I can respect an open liquor advocate in comparison. 

But let us change the figure. Behold the castle of old 
King Alcohol. How strong the fortifications! From turret 
to foundation stone, it is manned by the Democratic party. 
“Old Sumptuary” is in complete possession. The outer breast¬ 
works are occupied by the right wing of the Republican party, 
the saloon Republicans, while marching and countermarching 
upon the plain below is the left wing of the party, the anti¬ 
saloon Republicans. We are after the head of old King Al¬ 
cohol, but we must first storm his fortress—the legalized liquor 
traffic. The prohibition cohorts must rout first the van-guard 
division of the liquor army, then will follow its final defeat, 
the downfall of the fortress and the head of the old whisky 
monarch will adorn the outer gates as a warning to all enemies 
of temperance, morality and virtue. 

After the decision of the impending election, no matter 
which party is successful, the way will be open for the 
settlement of this live, all-important question of the prohi¬ 
bition of the liquor traffic. Is it an axiom of civil polity that 
parties should never die ? Horace Greeley, the great journalist 
and statesman, advocated the principle that political parties 
should be reorganized every twelve years. Any party—how¬ 
ever glorious its history—will eventually become corrupt* 
especially if it has control of the government for a long period 
of time. Change is as necessary to political purity as to the 
health of the individual. The breeze of heaven furnishes a 
purified atmosphere by constantly changing its relative 
position—by displacing the impure air of our crowded centers 
of population with the oxygen-ladenzephyr from the forest- 
covered stretches of country. The seeds of corruption flourish in 
a still air and a stagnant water. Thus, there must be constant 
change in the position of these two elements for the preser¬ 
vation of their purity and healthfulness. Indeed, this prin- 



ciple of change touches everything in the universe of God. 

There must be .frequent revolution, then, in the political 
complexion of the administration, if the well-being of the 
nation is to be conserved. Our history as a nation bears 
me out in that statement. The constant ascendency of one 
political party or faction inevitably results in corrupt combin¬ 
ations against the welfare of the public, whereby greedy poli¬ 
ticians, and unprincipled leaders turn aside all agencies, good 
and bad, to their own base uses, while the interests of the 
people go begging for a guardian. The party or faction out 
of power is likely to be free from ring rule and, whatever else 
it may be, is not liable to be corrupt, official power being 
almost a pre-requisite to that condition of affairs. The disper¬ 
sion of political rings, corrupt cliques and moss-back office¬ 
holders ought to be welcomed by every lover of his country’s 
welfare. 

Young men, I plead with you to leave the old, decaying, 
graveyard, liquor-loving, rum-ruled organizations and join the 
grand young party of morals, conscience and live issues, which 
is giving open battle for the homes of our land. We need and 
must have your aid. Thousands of young men have 
determined to cast their ballot and the weight of their moral 
support for the abolition of the curse of intemperance. They 
witness the manifold evils flowing from the habit and seeing, 
abhor them. It is comparatively easy for them so to decide 
for the prejudices of a life time do not preclude right action. 
Our brightest hopes lie with the youth of the nation: the ris¬ 
ing generation will indeed solve the great problem. The 
young men of a nation are its strongest bulwark. When the 
call to war rings out over the affrighted land, you are tin* 
ones to shoulder the rifle, march to the front and if need be 
lay down your lives upon the altar of your country. We are 
now engaged in another irrepressible conflict—not with bullets, 
but with ballots. Xot the groans of another race, but the 
tears of our kindred spur us on to nobler effort. Young men, 
this great question of the prohibition of the liquor traffic fur¬ 
nishes you, as does none other, with an opportunity for expend¬ 
ing some of the zeal, enthusiasm and wealth of powers which 
adorn your manhood’s prime in achieving the independence of 
the American people from the galling chains of a slavery far 


39 


more terrible than that which cursed the poor negro! 

The home protection cohorts are heeding the call and are 
gathering for the conflict. The best manhood and woman¬ 
hood of the nation, to-day, are up in arms against thjs pitiless 
destroyer of our homes. We are waging a deathless warfare 
with the giant evil of this age—the curse of drink. Upon this 
most important question I plead for your best thought. I want 
you to think and act and vote soberly, intelligently, and above 
all, conscientiously. Yes, I do maintain that you should vote 
right upon the approaching sixth of November, calling to 
your assistance all the divinely appointed gifts of your glorious 
manhood. I plead with you in this supreme hour of the 
nation’s need, to cast all the weight of your civic powers in the 
balance for our homes and beloved country. Propriety and 
fairness and justice and equity are calling for prompt and 
decided action upon the part of every loyal citizen. Oh, if 
every enlightened Christian voter in the land to-day, in the 
consideration of this all-pervasive question of the protection 
of the American home from the assaults of the American saloon, 
crystallizing into action the best impulses of an awakened 
conscience, should cast his ballot in harmony with his highest 
thought, our gallant standard bearers, Fisk and Brooks, 
would be nearer the White House to-day than either Cleve¬ 
land or Harrison, our homes and loved ones would not long 
remain under the shadow of this terrible incubus of the 
demon’s drink, and speedily would follow the downfall of the 
Red Dragon from his dominant position in the politics of 
our nation ! 



NOTE. 


“The Dragon in Politics, or Prohibition the Great Issue.” 
A speech by Henry H. Poser, delivered at Freeport, Illinois. 
October 15, 1888, upon the eve of the great conflict of ballots. 
It has been characterized as a clear, logical and forcible pre¬ 
sentation of the claims of prohibition to recognition in the 
field of partisan politics and a convincing exposition of the 
province of the Prohibition party in the new crusade against 
the organized rum power. The book should be in the hands of 
every prohibitionist who is aiming to fortify himself in the 
great warfare upon the crime of the age. 12 mo, 40 pp., paper, 
20 cents. Address the author at Platteville, Wisconsin. 




















